CS1: Water Stress

You are a volunteer in your ninth week of a twelve-week project in a small, suburban and semi-arid region. During your pre-departure training, the NGO you work for emphasized their sustainability policy, which stresses local ownership and a low social footprint. You work at the local youth centre, have learned the local language and developed strong friendships with some of the youth. Unexpectedly, the electricity in the community goes out without any assurance of when it will be restored. The piped water supply is accessed only through electronically-powered pumps to buildings in the area.

The team is worried about how they will get the water they need to cope with this unfamiliar arid climate. The team has a contingency fund. Should you spend the money to rent a generator to pump water for your team’s use?

When “Justice” is held as the most important consideration in your deliberations, resources are distributed equally to all individuals who are similarly situated. In this case justice would favour allocating the funds for the generator to all those in the community (volunteers included), because everyone is thought to be in a similar situation. Some questions may arise regarding “Justice” in this situation:

What does it mean to be “similarly situated” (i.e., what options do some have that others don’t)?

What might be problematic about assuming that volunteers and community partners are “similarly situated”?

Is it fair to give the volunteer team water when the entire community lacks access as well?

Why is it important to think about distribution when circumstances are difficult?

2. Non-Maleficence/Beneficence

When “non-maleficence” and “beneficence” are held as the most important considerations in your deliberations, you must strive to do good without doing harm. The benefits and harms of providing water to your team must be considered with respect to your health, community’s health, your relationship with the community, resource use, liability, etc. Some questions may arise regarding “non-maleficence” and “beneficence” in this situation:

What are the benefits and harms of providing water only for the team?

How will this affect the relationship between the team and the community? Will it create a divide?

Is it possible to do no harm in this case? Can you find an option that would do no harm?

3. Autonomy

When autonomy is held as the most important consideration, the preferences of the community are respected. In this case, it would mean asking the community their opinions about the team renting a generator. Some questions may arise regarding “autonomy” in this situation:

Why is it important to know the community’s opinion about the projects’ internal logistics?

Assuming that the team is concerned that they will not be able to sustain program efficiency without the generator, should the community you consult the community?

In what ways might the generator rental affect the community?

If you disagree with the community’s choice, what are your options? Should you pack up and leave?

Your team has decided to rent the generator and agree to only turn the generator on for a few hours at night to facilitate report-writing and fuel conservation. To save water, you begin to bucket-bathe once every three weeks instead of showering often. A week later, you hear word that the power could be out for up to two months, well after your team has left. The next morning one of the youth comes to your gate with a jerry can asking for water for the family. You don’t want to set a precedent, as there is no way you can support the whole community, but you don’t want to turn the youth away either. How do you respond?

Justice would support allocating the water to all similarly situated parties, in this case the whole community as well as the project volunteers. If you have water, you share it equitably regardless of the quantity.Some questions may arise regarding “Justice” in this situation:

Given that there isn’t enough water to meet the needs of the entire community, do you give water to this person?

How might people normally respond to long power outages and water shortages? Are there alternative solutions?

What happens when the water runs out? Who should have priority?

2. Non-Maleficence/Beneficence

When non-maleficence and beneficence are held as the most important considerations in your deliberations, you must strive to do good without doing harm. Non-maleficence and beneficence support giving water to the youth at the gate as it will fulfill the water needs of his family and provide a temporary solution. However, when considering the whole community, things become more complicated. Some questions may arise regarding “Non-maleficence” and “beneficence” in this situation:

Does it cause harm to the community when the volunteer team has a generator?

What is the potential long-term harm of the temporary solution of the generator?

If water were allocated to the community members, what would happen if your team left and the community still did not have access to power?

3. Autonomy

In this case a member of the community is asking for water and autonomy would support providing the youth with water for their family. Some questions may arise regarding “autonomy” in this situation:

Why would it be useful to identify this issue with the community members and see how they feel about the water supply and your project?

At this point, does the community recognize your project goals as more important than their access to water?

Does the action of the youth represent the preferences of the community? How would you know?

4. Appreciative Inquiry

Appreciative inquiry starts with the idea of ‘discovery’ – of inquiring more deeply into the situation, with a spirit of open curiosity but no judgment. This lays important groundwork for future decisions. The listed questions help the participant with the process of discovery – in the community but also within yourself. Some questions may arise regarding “appreciative inquiry” in this situation:

What are you thinking and feeling in this situation?

Why are you thinking / feeling that way? Who is involved in this situation, besides yourself?

What do you imagine this situation might look like from the perspective of each of the key stakeholders (e.g. your friend asking for water, the local NGO that you work with, the international NGO)?

Who have you discussed this with and who haven’t you discussed this with and why? Where do you fit into this issue?

You want to intervene in the push to get water to those who need it, but your Programming Officer forbids you from doing so and threatens to send you home (citing issues of liability for your organization). How does this affect your role as a volunteer within the organization and within the community?

Justice would support intervening to get water for those who need it, and so would dictate that you disobey your Programming Officer. Some questions may arise regarding “Justice” in this situation:

Even though it is supplying the community with a resource they require, is a short-term solution going to be sustainable?

How important are long-term considerations?

Is it a more efficient use of money to provide finite resources right away, or to invest money in a more sustainable solution

If you got sent home how would that affect the distribution of resources or the success of the project

2. Non-maleficence/Beneficence

Programming Officers may be valuable referees and crossing them may jeopardize your chances of further work or schooling. Consider this alongside the impact (causing harm or doing good) that your actions have in the community. Some questions may arise regarding “Non-maleficence” and “beneficence” in this situation:

Does it cause more harm than good to the community if you disobey your Programming Officer?

What amount of the burden of alienating him/her are you willing to take on?

How will this affect your team members and their ability to continue to do their job?

3. Autonomy

Autonomy would maintain that honouring the preferences of the community partners is the most important. Some questions may arise regarding “autonomy” in this situation:

Is there a problem if projects continue despite not meeting a communities self-identified needs?

Would you consider staying on a project if you didn’t agree with the actions carried out by the group?

4. Appreciative Inquiry

In your imagination, fast forward yourself to the future (the end of your time on the project). What has been accomplished regarding this situation? What are three wishes that you have in regard to the situation? Imagine these wishes being accomplished… what were the keys to your success? Who else around you is energized to take action? What strengths did you mobilize to achieve the accomplishments – in yourself and others around you? In envisioning this future, what is most valuable to you? Try to put yourself in this situation answering some of these questions…

These questions move you into the second stage of appreciative inquiry – ‘dream’. This stage asks you to imagine an ideal future with the underlying philosophy that there is a connection between what a community or organization focusses on and what type of future is created. The assumption is that by highlighting what is strong and vibrant about a community, it will continue to move in that direction. ‘Human systems grow in the direction of what they persistently ask questions about’ (Cooperrider and Whitney). This approach involves first envisioning an ideal future – instead of focusing on needs, or problems – and then identifying assets, strengths and capacities within the community that can be built on to achieve that future. This second part also involves an empowerment approach – each community member has assets and strengths to build on; by valuing community members, each person will feel connected to the success of the community, or realizing the particular future that you’re working together to build. In the focus on strengths and assets, AI is very much related to ‘Asset Based Community Development’. Because the ideal future is built on a positive core that is context-specific (‘the best of what is’ in the particular community) and because the community itself envisions the future – of which there infinite potentials – AI does not provide answers; rather it provides the process for a group of people to come up with their own answers and work towards these together. In a real life scenario, the next steps of the AI process would be to ‘design’ – start to pin down your ideal future into a very tangible vision and list immediate actions to take and then ‘deliver’ – actually doing those actions.

Hamm, S. (2008). A For Profit Brings Clean Water to the Poor. Bloomberg Business Week.

United Nations Education, S. a. C. O. (2009). “The United Nations World Water Development Report 3: Message to Non-Governmental Organizations.”

Academic Resources (7):

Brandsen, T. (2009). “Civicness in Organizations: A Reflection on the Relationship Between Professionals and Managers.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 20(3): 260-273.

Harremoës, P. (2002). “Water ethics – a substitute for over-regulation of a scarce resource.” Water Science and Technology 45(8): 113-124.

Harshfield, E., A. Jemec, et al. (2009). ” Water Purfication in Rural South Africa: Ethical Analysis and Reflections on Collaborative Community Engagement Projects in Engineering.” International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering.

Silberberg, M. (1998). “Balancing Autonomy and Independence for Community and Nongovernmental Organizations.” Social Service Review 72(1): 47-69.